You know, the guys i've done Jujitsu with bring up this kind of stuff all the time, they strike alot, and many of their kata (it's Danzan Ryu, so they have kata) seem to actually include strikes. is it striking? Sure.

Is is striking with the same kind of intent and purpose as Karate or another percussive discipline? Hell no,

I cant quite see that logic. That is surely down to the person that isolates and practices the strikes? Be from which ever kata they are held in?

Quote:

much the same as most throws, jointlocks, etc. taught in Karate are basic by the standards of an art like Jujitsu, and occupy a different place in the strategy of the art.

Perhaps they are but untill someone works out every intended move available in every karate kata, the history of karate then who knows what was trained.

Sheer speculation but there it is.

Quote:

In addition, you analogy is not a good one because if a BJJ boxed like a boxer that is obviously not in the art.

Wasnt BJJ a culmination of arts worked on by the people who trained it in Brazil? It started with Meada and then gracie family continued to develop the system throughout the 20th century,as well as often fighting in vale tudo before MMA. bareknuckle boxing? included. Meada had fought boxers.

So I think some form of boxing is in the art. If you would like to look at a modern Book reference Mastering Jujitsu, Renzo Grazie freemovement phase. Boxing is included. Except it is MMA type gloved

It was refered to on here of Okinawan karate ka taking part in a form of bareknuckle boxing.

This is open to speculation but there was also a lot of Okinawans who emigrated to Brasil.Including karate ka. Bareknucke type karate ka.Vale tudo? Bareknuckle? Karate-ka in Brasil? Bareknuckle?

Anyway the grappling art you practiced outside of karate. How do you know that part of them werent integrated in to Okinawan karate at some point?

Quote:However, if the ground fighting looks very different from how a BJJ guys rolls and contains strategy that is very different, then would we assume that he got his techniques from BJJ?

Your strategy is NOT to beat the other guy? How different can it be?

Quote:And who said that learning BJJ is cross training and learning wrestling is not?

You have repeatedly implied that wrestling is part of karate training, despite little evidence that it was. And you seem to imply that BJJ is NOT considered karate, and that it is inferior in strategy to wrestling. But by your logic, wouldn't BJJ be considered part of karate?

Quote:As far as me hating BJJ, that is not the case. I don't like their strategy. I like to get up if I'm put down, not fight from my back. The guard is NOT a neutral position.

This simply shows both your ignorance and your agenda. BJJ strategy is to defeat the opponent. Many BJJ people train to get up or at least obtain top position if taken to the ground. And the guard is certainly a better position that being mounted. Between being standing and being mounted, the guard is considered a neutral position - despite what YOU think. Had you trained BJJ for more than 2 months, you probably would have been shown the same things that I am talking about. Because beginners to grappling often end up on their backs, that is the first thing that they learn. To imply that wrestling is better than BJJ for the street is questionable logic, considering that BJJ was developed as a street-fighting art in Brazil. But wait - you keep noting that BJJ has good self defense. So which is it?

And wrestling training teaches some bad habits of it's own - giving up the back, not protecting the neck, etc.

Not to slag wrestling, which is a good art to learn. But it's not better than anything else, like some people would have you believe.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

You know, the guys i've done Jujitsu with bring up this kind of stuff all the time, they strike alot, and many of their kata (it's Danzan Ryu, so they have kata) seem to actually include strikes. is it striking? Sure.

Is is striking with the same kind of intent and purpose as Karate or another percussive discipline? Hell no,

I cant quite see that logic. That is surely down to the person that isolates and practices the strikes? Be from which ever kata they are held in?

Ummm, well, no.

Have you ever seen Jujutsu kata that have atemi-waza? If you have you wouldn't be arguing with me about the place of striking in them.

They don't include striking in the same way that an art like Karate does, so no, it's not just "down to the person", some arts are better at some things than others.

Same with Judo atemi-waza, it is/was such a samll part of the curriculum that you hardly see it anymore, and even in the early days it was (as far as I know) basically reserved for demo and kata.

Do you think all arts can do everything equally? Why even differentiate them at all then?

Is there striking here? yep. In fact many Karate dojo teach applications like this, however i'm reasonably sure that in the case of these guys they probably spend alot more time on throwing, locking, than actual practice or refinement of percussive techniques, furthermore if we go by what's shwon here the strikes occupy the place of simply being "extra credit" and diversionary tactics to set up the throws, not exactly how striking works in Karate kata, though it may in some instances.

I find bizarre this argument in the post-UFC ma world where people constantly want to call apples oranges, various TMA have the points they focus on, and the points where only a a more basic form of knowledge is expected, I don't see why that concept is so weird for people.

It's almost as if you guys are trying to say that before the modern era martial arts were all-inclusive super-arts where the practitioners were great at all aspects.

That's called romanticizing the past. In this case though, you seem to be romanticizing the past using the yardstick of modern MMA training...confusing to say the least what exactly you guys are driving at.

to my knowledge, Victor doesn't teach groundfighting integrated into his Karate in the sense of the defining link I gave of submission wrestling. Instead, I believe he redefines 'groundfighting' the same way you do: that is, an opponent hitting the floor and finishing/submitting an opponent on one knee - also the philosophy of whatever works standing works on the ground. Therefore bypassing the argument by using redefined terms.

but I could be wrong, and if so, my appologies in advance to you and Victor.

Quote:

Quote:Karate is for defending yourself while standing.

Ed, I find it interesting that although Victor Smith has also made points contrary to such beliefs, you have never challenged him on that point. I wonder why?

but if you are insinuating some kind of biased cronieism, then you are dead wrong. I consider victor a friend, but I don't think there is a problem that we disagree on points of opinion.

It's simply that Ed doesn't want to read the book of a reply I would give.

not sure if thats a fair assessment Victor. remember the 600+ page Uechi ryu 'blue book' you gave me in pdf form? I read it all. every page. Thanks again for passing that along, by the way.

your bubishi assesment on your webpage? I read it all. Your translation from french Mabuni's work? read it all.

in fact, Victor, I may be one of the few who actually HAS read your material that you share. but people think what they will...how well does anyone really know anyone, I suppose. - particularly when the communication is a one-way conversation.

Defining ground techniques in what I teach is difficult to define for I teach to the person because it is based on their their range of abilitites.

Historically the Isshinryu system as it developed does include countering attacks on the ground from several different areas. As other Okinawan systems derived from the instructors studying with Shimabuku Tatsuo, it is not illogical to assume they may have retained those studies too.

The most difficult thing to define is what any of the Okinawa systems really were before systems sprang into existence in the 50's. It's safe to assume they followed whatever the instructor felt was reasonable, and almost none of those studies were documented. That an echo of that training became the later systems, does not mean those systems were the original practices either.

It's obvious that modern day goju is not the way Miyagi taught, but a systematic approach to share his teachings. The difference between the original to the derivative is very large, but oftimes difficult to see.

In my study The Isshinryu kusanku kata contains techniques that take a person to the ground, riding them down to complete the attack.

Our approach is not that of wrestling an opponent on the ground. One of my seniors was a very accomplished wrestler, but never included that into his Isshinryu. No need.

Of course as my practice includes multiple traditions integrated into my Isshinryu practice ground defense/attack is also reviewed from an Indonesian and Chinese perspectives.

For those who such instruction is called, it is not something that they begin with, but spend years building skill sets that will eventually work into those studies. Yet at the same time one aspect of our ground fighting begins the first week of training too.

The more important thing is not to let others define what you are, or to share what you do too openly either.

The most important clasical tool in karate was and is deception. Allow others to mistake the purpose of karate is fighting. Allow them to accept karate was not designed to work the low, just the middle or the high.

Quote:Our approach is not that of wrestling an opponent on the ground.

same here. nor have I seen any evidence of any Karate style (prior to the 1990's that is) with the training method required to gain such skills.

of course, it doesn't mean it can't be done - but I believe it changes the intent of what Karate addresses...perhaps thats why your prior student with a ground wrestling background didn't feel the need to incorporate wrestling on the ground. and who knows, maybe thats why there is also no evidence that tegumi was ever part of the curriculums which the founders established. Even if the curriculums were mere outlines, if wrestling on the ground were critical to the strategy of Karate, you'd think they would at least give it the same importance as supplimentals such as kakie and hojo undo in Goju, for example.

I think most agree takedowns and knee-ride submission techniques are and have been part of Karate. but I don't think that qualifies as wrestling on the ground, by popular definition.

Quote: But wait - you keep noting that BJJ has good self defense. So which is it?

I thought you would know, all BJJ is not the same. There is BJJ for vale tudo, sport grappling, and self defense. The techniques are the same, but the strategies and different. Being you have taken the art for over 2 years wouldn't you knwo this? Their SD stuff is good. Their vale tudo stuff is okay. Their sport stuff ingrains bad strategies.

Quote:And wrestling training teaches some bad habits of it's own - giving up the back, not protecting the neck, etc.

Correct, sport wrestling does teach these things. Wrestling for fighting does not. But then, if you had ANY experience with it, you would know this.

Quote:Not to slag wrestling, which is a good art to learn. But it's not better than anything else, like some people would have you believe.

Well, some arts are better for certain people and what they bring to the table. I always say that BJJ and its strategies are not for me. Wrestling as it relates to fighting is much more my fit. Especially because I don't have to learn a lot of knew stuff, just new ways to use the stuff I know.

Quote:Am I gonna say "this is Danzan Ryu" if teaching an esacpe from a hold? No, martial arts aren't brand names. I will however be honest and say that my own skill at using these techniques is much the better for having trained these techniques in Jujitsu a little, so i can't sit back and claim they "came from kata" in terms of the nuances i've learned with them.

That's similar to my approach. When I teach grappling when fighting I say this is wrestling and this is where it can be found in kata.